4 ms·

> we need to build more units and clear away some of the outdated laws and regulations I think this should be done very carefully. Everyone wants more housing

> we need to build more units and clear away some of the outdated laws and regulations I think this should be done very carefully. Everyone wants more housing but there are home inspectors on YouTube who document how much builders cut corners and try to gaslight people into thinking the damage is normal for new builds. See Cy Porter's channel as an example. My overall point is that building booms don't necessarily = good. We get housing but also the pleasure of filing complaints and fighting with the builders over shoddy work. Is it worth it?

wikibob 2y ago
The regulations referenced are prohibitive zoning regulations. These dictate that you are only allowed to build single family homes on the property you own, and that the homes must be very low density, have huge setbacks from the property lines, etc. The regulation changes are not related to the quality or safety of a dwelling.
throwup238 2y ago
Yes. It’s worth it because we desperately need that housing. I trust our building code so as long as buildings aren’t falling down and killing people, it’s worth it. America’s housing stock has always been on the cheap side. Coming from the buildings in Europe, it all seems like flimsy stick construction anyway.
- hypeatei 2y ago
  > I trust our building code so as long as buildings aren’t falling down and killing people That's the thing, city inspectors (the government) sign off on these houses and third party inspectors come and find broken trusses in the attic. Sure, it didn't fall down but that's a serious structural issue. Not to mention all the water leaks from showers etc... that can cause mold issues later on.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
    Mold or no not mold...if its built at 1/3 the cost, if you find a major problem, you could tear it all down, rebuild it, and still come out ahead. The chinese are able to build hospitals in 2 weeks. In other places you build concrete houses at a 3rd of the cost and in 1/2 the time. Tells you something about how much fat there is to cut.
    - hysan 2y ago
      If it’s built at 1/3 the cost but needs to be rebuilt frequently, then it’s not really cheaper. The cost just gets spread out over time and you incur the additional cost of needing to deal with the sourcing and reconstructing of the house. There’s definitely fat to cut, but I don’t think poor construction is a good way to cut that fat.
      - throwup238 2y ago
        It really doesn't matter. The cost of $100k in repairs over 30 years is under $300/month and that's enough to rebuild an decent house or condo in most of the country. Demand has driven up the cost of housing much more than $300/month, whether you're renting an apartment or buying a house. For most renters that's close to what their landlords profit on top of an over-leveraged mortgage or what they can save by buying if there was any affordable real estate.
IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
The slogan "get rid of outdated laws" sounds nice but its just political marketing. In the end, its a massive web of local regulations that are causing housing shortages, and therefore preventing building booms from happening. Instead of slogans, it would be healthier to be honest and promote the paradigm that more houses necessarily means more error. On a grand scale, the more you relax rules, the more you get of it, and the faster prices drop due to supply, but also the more bad actors are attracted to the mix. The truth is, some developers will cut corners legitimately as a test of whether X process is necessary only to find out later that indeed it was needed. But you need to accept error in the system because if you dont you end up with massive affordability problems, housing shortages, and homeless on the streets.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  One of the articles that cropped up in hackers news within the last year mentioned that we have seen technological innovation drive down the cost and almost every field of endeavor except construction. In construction the innovation improvements have been completely offset by the inefficiencies of the regulations incrementally imposed. And, of course, when you talk about errors in the system you are mainly talking about the system itself - - which as anybody who has studied bureaucracies knows exist to support and extend itself, not to provide the service for which it was originally created
shepherdjerred 2y ago
As another commenter said, as long as people aren’t being killed it’s better than the current situation. I would definitely take a reasonably priced fixer-upper over paying rent.
- Gibbon1 2y ago
  Better to live in a cheaply constructed 12 plex than in a 12 unit homeless encampment. Because lets be honest that is the two realistic choices we have before us.
moribvndvs 2y ago
I’m also concerned about the certainty this will dump more fuel on the fire of a) poorly planned urban sprawl that is destroying green space and farms and increasing reliance on cars and corporate institutions, and b) gentrification that is pushing lower income residents out of their neighborhoods and increasing the inventory of insanely overpriced, low occupancy dwellings. In both cases, developers and politicians win but the problems largely remain.
- hypeatei 2y ago
  Good point. In general it just seems like a lot of nuance is lost in these "need housing at all costs" initiatives. On paper we get a bunch of housing but in reality there are tons of people taking advantage of all the money flowing in and doing shitty work without considering external factors like the ones you mentioned. Obviously not every builder is bad, but I certainly don't trust a business made for profit to not cut corners.

wikibob 2y ago

The regulations referenced are prohibitive zoning regulations. These dictate that you are only allowed to build single family homes on the property you own, and that the homes must be very low density, have huge setbacks from the property lines, etc. The regulation changes are not related to the quality or safety of a dwelling.

throwup238 2y ago

Yes. It’s worth it because we desperately need that housing. I trust our building code so as long as buildings aren’t falling down and killing people, it’s worth it. America’s housing stock has always been on the cheap side. Coming from the buildings in Europe, it all seems like flimsy stick construction anyway.

hypeatei 2y ago
> I trust our building code so as long as buildings aren’t falling down and killing people That's the thing, city inspectors (the government) sign off on these houses and third party inspectors come and find broken trusses in the attic. Sure, it didn't fall down but that's a serious structural issue. Not to mention all the water leaks from showers etc... that can cause mold issues later on.
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
  Mold or no not mold...if its built at 1/3 the cost, if you find a major problem, you could tear it all down, rebuild it, and still come out ahead. The chinese are able to build hospitals in 2 weeks. In other places you build concrete houses at a 3rd of the cost and in 1/2 the time. Tells you something about how much fat there is to cut.
  - hysan 2y ago
    If it’s built at 1/3 the cost but needs to be rebuilt frequently, then it’s not really cheaper. The cost just gets spread out over time and you incur the additional cost of needing to deal with the sourcing and reconstructing of the house. There’s definitely fat to cut, but I don’t think poor construction is a good way to cut that fat.
    - throwup238 2y ago
      It really doesn't matter. The cost of $100k in repairs over 30 years is under $300/month and that's enough to rebuild an decent house or condo in most of the country. Demand has driven up the cost of housing much more than $300/month, whether you're renting an apartment or buying a house. For most renters that's close to what their landlords profit on top of an over-leveraged mortgage or what they can save by buying if there was any affordable real estate.

IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago

The slogan "get rid of outdated laws" sounds nice but its just political marketing. In the end, its a massive web of local regulations that are causing housing shortages, and therefore preventing building booms from happening. Instead of slogans, it would be healthier to be honest and promote the paradigm that more houses necessarily means more error. On a grand scale, the more you relax rules, the more you get of it, and the faster prices drop due to supply, but also the more bad actors are attracted to the mix. The truth is, some developers will cut corners legitimately as a test of whether X process is necessary only to find out later that indeed it was needed. But you need to accept error in the system because if you dont you end up with massive affordability problems, housing shortages, and homeless on the streets.

readthenotes1 2y ago
One of the articles that cropped up in hackers news within the last year mentioned that we have seen technological innovation drive down the cost and almost every field of endeavor except construction. In construction the innovation improvements have been completely offset by the inefficiencies of the regulations incrementally imposed. And, of course, when you talk about errors in the system you are mainly talking about the system itself - - which as anybody who has studied bureaucracies knows exist to support and extend itself, not to provide the service for which it was originally created

shepherdjerred 2y ago

As another commenter said, as long as people aren’t being killed it’s better than the current situation. I would definitely take a reasonably priced fixer-upper over paying rent.

Gibbon1 2y ago
Better to live in a cheaply constructed 12 plex than in a 12 unit homeless encampment. Because lets be honest that is the two realistic choices we have before us.

moribvndvs 2y ago

I’m also concerned about the certainty this will dump more fuel on the fire of a) poorly planned urban sprawl that is destroying green space and farms and increasing reliance on cars and corporate institutions, and b) gentrification that is pushing lower income residents out of their neighborhoods and increasing the inventory of insanely overpriced, low occupancy dwellings. In both cases, developers and politicians win but the problems largely remain.

hypeatei 2y ago
Good point. In general it just seems like a lot of nuance is lost in these "need housing at all costs" initiatives. On paper we get a bunch of housing but in reality there are tons of people taking advantage of all the money flowing in and doing shitty work without considering external factors like the ones you mentioned. Obviously not every builder is bad, but I certainly don't trust a business made for profit to not cut corners.